James Carlson wrote:
> That seems to me to get more complicated. Why should we apply more
> implementation effort to something that is intentionally narrow use.
Hey, I thought implementation effort did not matter as the current
proposal actually took more effort to implement than a simple
socket option ;-)
> The option just doesn't make sense to me. The only one that could
> make some sense is PF_KEY, as a full Cisco-like command line interface
> would potentially allow the user to specify the key from within the
> application (as distasteful and insecure as that may be).
Suppose Quaqqa has a CLI which does what Cisco's does, why a socket
option not work in this case? Can't Quagga just take the command
line input and do a setsockopt()?
--
K. Poon.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
